6th edition Min Str

[ajackson]

In 4th edition, Str Min followed a very specific formula, so all weapons with the same Str Min were roughly equally potent. In 6th edition, this is completely gone -- a small axe (1d6+1, min str 8) is Just Plain Better than a shortsword (1d6, min str 10) (I'm somewhat mystified by how axes in 6e seem to be better than other similar weapons). If you're paying points for weapons, this isn't necessarily an issue (the shortsword is 9 points, the axe is 13), but otherwise it seems problematic. I was thinking of a few ways of solving this:

• Rewrite the weapon tables so all weapons of the same min Str have about the same cost.
  
• Import the 4e Min Str into 6e.
  
• Eliminate Min Str and reduce base weapon damage.
  

The first two options are basically the same, except the first case is just a GM rewrite, the second case has formal rules (for reference, 4e Min Str = Active/2). The third option has the virtue that it makes FH consistent with Champions, but the problem that it's hard to apply to ranged weapons (particularly if it's not an HKA usable at range) and that it winds up being very easy to max out damage (if you want a dagger to do 1/2d6K with a normal user, you need it to be 1 pip HKA, and it gets maxed with Str 5).

 

Has anyone considered anything of the sort?

[Old Man]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Fantasy Hero STR Mins haven't made sense since 1st ed (and not even then, really). It's nice to see that my impassioned pleas that this be fixed, since before 5th FH, are still going unheeded. Were I to play FH today, I suppose I'd still have to drag out my modified 4th ed weapon tables. Pathetic.

 

Anyway to answer your question, you want option 2, but without the blind adherence to mathematics. Things like handedness and throwability aren't taken into account very well in the points, and Hero just isn't costed right for fantasy to begin with. So figure out what the math says the STR Min should be, then adjust each weapon a point or three, if necessary, for balance. This has the added benefit of getting some STR mins off the 10/13/15/18 breakpoints and creating at least a token motivation for players to buy an 'odd' value for STR.

[Lezentauw]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Well, I am sure I read somewhere else on these boards, that people like you do not agree with how axes now seem a better than swords. As has been stated though, if you don't like what was presented then change it. HERO is a toolkit after all, nothing says you have to follow it verbatim.

 

Here is what I like for weapons in my campaign. I actually want each weapon type to have an advantage over other weapons.

• Axes do more damage due to a design that utilizes momentum.

• Swords are better at parrying, and get an OCV bonus for parrying.

• Spears are capable of setting for charge and have a better reach.

• Flails are better at ignoring shields

• Bashing weapons get a +1 Stun Multiplier.

• Piercing weapons get some form of armor piercing

 

 

If you give each weapon their own unique advantage, IMO it can add flavor to the different weapon choices...

[Curufea]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Min Str should be based on weapon weight - and nothing else.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Min Str should be based on weapon weight - and nothing else.

 

Spoken like one who has never swung both a 2-lb rapier (where all the weight is literally in your palm) and a 2-lb hatchet (where all the weight is at the far end of the haft). Where the weight is located on the weapon makes at least as much difference as how much the weapon weighs.

[Nevenall]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Spoken like one who has never swung both a 2-lb rapier (where all the weight is literally in your palm) and a 2-lb hatchet (where all the weight is at the far end of the haft). Where the weight is located on the weapon makes at least as much difference as how much the weapon weighs.

 

Which is exactly why the GM should set the STR Mins to whatever he feels is the right blend of "realism" and game balance for a particular campaign.

[Escafarc]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

I don't use the weapons chart for my FH campaign. I use Resource Points and each player builds his weapons to suit their character concept within campaign rules like: 1 handed weapons have a Max AP limit of 30. I might have to make some changes to the limits once I finish getting through 6E but it works for us.

[Old Man]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

HERO is a toolkit after all' date=' nothing says you have to follow it verbatim.[/quote']

 

Nothing against you, but God I hate this attitude. It's a cop-out. I pay how much for 6th ed, and I still have to go fix the weapons list before I can use it? No one bothered to balance the MELEE WEAPON CHART in a game that is ABOUT MELEE COMBAT? Come on!

 

If you give each weapon their own unique advantage, IMO it can add flavor to the different weapon choices...

 

Absolutely, and it's been that way in FH for decades. But you still have to assign appropriate STR Mins for balance and realism.

[Curufea]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Spoken like one who has never swung both a 2-lb rapier (where all the weight is literally in your palm) and a 2-lb hatchet (where all the weight is at the far end of the haft). Where the weight is located on the weapon makes at least as much difference as how much the weapon weighs.

 

Spoken like someone who doesn't know the definition of weight

It's mass as affected by gravity.

Mind you, you could go into the specifics of torque if you wanted to. And air resistence for that matter.

 

My question is - why would you want to? How does it "improve the roleplaying experience"? Is it worth bothering with?

 

I've never swung a 2 pound anything, I've used swords and axes (single and double) up to 4 kilos.

How different things swing has little bearing on strength minimum. It's pedantic, pointless and a waste of time.

 

If it is harder to swing one end or the other - is equally pointless as you need to be able to swing both. So - Axe or Sword, minimum affects both. Or were you planning on never being able to parry with one or never being able to slash with the other?

[ajackson]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Actually, on thinking about it, you could probably do without Str mins entirely, and just say that a stronger person is assumed to use a bigger weapon, while not bothering to change weapon stats (i.e. it's always Xd6). To fix scaling, we add a perk: 'increased max DC', which allows a KA to be increased by 1 over its normal max DC; this sounds like a 1 point per level perk. Consider a structure like this:

 

Melee Weapons Multipower: 40 point reserves, all powers OAF

40 point slots (two-handed weapons); all cost 2 points to learn.

• Any Melee Weapon
  : use 1H stats, at +1 DC.
  
  
• Crossbow
  : 1.5d6 HKA, Ranged, 32 clips of 1 charge; +1 PSL vs Range.
  
  
• Longbow
  : 1d6+1 HKA, Ranged, 32 charges; +2 PSL vs Range.
  
  
• Long Spear
  : 1d6+1 HKA, 0 END; Reach +2m, 0 END; Martial Throw (stop thrust); +1 OCV with martial throw.
  
  
• Staff
  : 4d6 HA, 0 END; +1 OCV, +1 DCV
  
  

30 point slots (major hand weapons); all cost 1 point

• Axe
  : 1d6+1 HKA, 0 END
  
  
• Axe, Thrown
  : 1d6+1 HKA, Range based on Str, up to 8 recoverable charges; Range based on Str on up to 20 Str.
  
  
• Club
  : 4d6 HA, 0 END
  
  
• Flail
  : 1d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, 0 END; +1 OCV vs Block, vs Shields, and with Trip.
  
  
• Hammer/Mace
  : 1d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, 0 END
  
  
• Hammer, Thrown
  : 1d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, Range based on Str, up to 8 recoverable
  charges
  ; +1 OCV with Throw; Range based on Str on up to 20 Str.
  
  
• Pick
  : 1d6 HKA, AP, 0 END
  
  
• Sword
  : 1d6 HKA, 0 END; +1 OCV with all attacks, +1 OCV with Block, Disarm, Hipshot
  
  

10 point slots (Off-Hand Bonuses and Minor Weapons); all cost 1 point

• Dagger
  : 1 DC killing, Range Based on Str, 0 END; +1 max DC.
  
  
• Shield
  : +2 DCV against all attacks.
  
  
• Stiletto
  : 1 DC killing, AP, 0 END.
  
  
• Two-Handed Grip
  : +6 Str, 0 END cost; increased max DC +1.
  
  
• Two-Weapon Style
  : naked advantage: autofire 2 on 30 active points, 0 END cost.
  
  

Given the low costs of slots, it's fair to simply use WF costs as slot costs, it will be close enough.

[Rapier]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Fantasy Hero STR Mins haven't made sense since 1st ed (and not even then' date=' really). It's nice to see that my impassioned pleas that this be fixed, since before 5th FH, are still going unheeded. Were I to play FH today, I suppose I'd still have to drag out my modified 4th ed weapon tables. Pathetic. [/quote']

 

Well, I've just got to belabour the obvious.

 

1) Last time I checked you weren't the Lead Line Developer.

2) Simply because you, personally, find something completely broken and/or nonsensical doesn't mean everyone else does.

3) Not making every single change to a game you don't own/control is not pathetic. In point of fact, I feel it safe to say that to bow down and make every single change every single person requests would, in fact, be pathetic. That's kind of why one guy is in charge.

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Well, I've just got to belabour the obvious.

2) Simply because you, personally, find something completely broken and/or nonsensical doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

As long as we're belaboring the obvious -

 

it's not just him.

 

If you'd like to try convincing people that the weapon charts as they stand are not "broken and/or nonsensical" you can try explaining why you think they make sense.

 

If you acknowledge that they're nonsensical and just don't care, feel free to say so. You can even try explaining why you don't care, if you care to.

 

Some people do care about nonsense, and don't think it's a good idea (at least in weapons charts.)

 

But taunting someone with what seems to me to amount to "who cares what you think, you can't do anything about it!" does not seem productve to me.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is sure there's been another discussion like this recently....

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Here's a recent thread on just this topic.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/78314-(Equipment)-Axe-vs.-Sword?highlight=weapon

 

Here's what I had to say on the subject of weapon differentiation.

 

If you have a dagger, and your enemy has an axe, you are going to be inside the swing of that arc before you get close enough to stab.

 

In other words, no, having the shorter weapon doesn't mean you act before someone with a longer weapon - usually it would be the opposite.

 

Now, as you point out, it's not necessarily that simple. It's possible to get incredibly complicated and detailed with melee weapons, to the point where it's beyond fun for anyone not obsessed with the subject - like Dark Champions did with guns and ammunition.

 

Part of what's happening is that we are confounding the questions of "who acts first?" and "who acts faster?" In Hero, those properties are described by DEX and SPD.

Giving a weapon a SPD bonus sounds unbalancing, but perhaps Autofire makes sense for something like a dagger. At any rate, I don't think it makes sense to give a dagger a DEX bonus!

 

To sum up, yes, you're right that decisions must be made as to how much detail to add to the game. But the question is, if you're going to add details, what details do you want?

In my opinion, there are good details and bad details.

 

I see two reasons for adding detail and complexity - properties I'll call realism, and fun.

 

Realistic details are meant to simulate something, in this case melee combat.

Fun details are about creating diversity that is in balance, i.e. giving players interesting options without making some options non-viable or others overly efficient.

 

These two have more in common that is immediately obvious. Consider - every weapon that has seen any kind of extensive use in history, was used because people found it to be effective for their purposes at the time.I'm not saying culture never plays a role, but the fact that, for example, in every culture with the tech to make them, some form or other of the sword has been the weapon of choice for professional warriors should tell us something about how useful it is. There is something wrong with a system that makes a sword less effective in combat than an ax.

 

Which is not to say that there should be no reason to choose the axe. Historically a Viking with an axe was one who could not afford a sword, so I've read, but I am sure some of them chose the axe because, besides killing, it was useful for breaking down doors or opening locked chests.

 

Someone's already pointed out that pole arms are very effective in a given circumstance - when in a formation of infantry on a battlefied, for mass combat

 

Now, in some cases what justifies a weapon's existance is something that may never matter to an adventurer - if all fighting is in small groups and formation tactics don't matter, maybe there's no reason to carry a halberd. But if any differentiation is made among weapons, that differentiation should make sense - there should always be a sensible answer to the question "why would anyone ever use that?" even if the answer is "it's cheap" or "it's simpler to learn to use."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Why would anyone take a palindromedary?

[Old Man]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

My question is - why would you want to? How does it "improve the roleplaying experience"? Is it worth bothering with?

 

Well, because giving all weapons of a given weight the same stats is boring. Mostly. As Lezentauw pointed out, it adds to the game when different weapon types have different game effects.

 

Also I see where you're coming from with the mass thing--I have a physics degree after all--but I think you are discounting torque and rotational inertia too much. It makes a huge difference whether the 2-kilo mass is centered a handswidth away from the hilt, or out at the end of a three foot haft.

[dmjalund]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Suggestion 1: option of taking DCV penalties to gain DEX for combat order (I'm trying to get inside his range and hit first, but I'm leaving myself vulnerable)

[Alibear]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

As a quick and dirty rule I'll make a few different sizes of weapons. Tiny, small, medium, large and extra large.

 

 

Str min 5 for tiny weapons. (daggers hatchets etc) all will do 2dc, can be thrown

 

Str min 8 for small weapons and will do 3dc

 

Str min 11 for medium 4dc

 

Str min 13 for 1.5 handers 5dc

 

Str min 17 for 6dc 2handers

 

Then I'll differentiate between them with different abilities An axe will do an extra dc, as sword extra ocv, a flail can use flail maneuver, a spear set v charge and is a long weapon, a pick/ stilleto -1 dc but is Ap etc.

 

I'll have a look at this ion detail later as I'm getting ready to restart our campaign in 6e.

[Old Man]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Well, I've just got to belabour the obvious.

 

1) Last time I checked you weren't the Lead Line Developer.

2) Simply because you, personally, find something completely broken and/or nonsensical doesn't mean everyone else does.

3) Not making every single change to a game you don't own/control is not pathetic. In point of fact, I feel it safe to say that to bow down and make every single change every single person requests would, in fact, be pathetic. That's kind of why one guy is in charge.

 

Okay... before I go on, if I seem to be coming off the handle a bit, it's because FH is far and away my favorite RPG, even moreso than Champions. I've been playing it for decades. So I care.

 

Now I'm sure the printed STR Min chart is fine for some; certainly whoever the "lead line developer" is thought so. However, in FH--any heroic-level combat RPG, really--weapons play a huge role. That seems pretty obvious. I guarantee that the weapons chart in any fantasy RPG is one of the ones that is going to get worn out fastest, along with the armor and encumbrance table, skills, and powers. It is one of the pages that you absolutely want to photocopy for reference in-game.

 

Fantasy Hero is particularly notable for allowing its players to play just about any kind of character they want, within reason, and still have them be effective in the game. That's why it's incredibly annoying for the weapon stats to be so out of whack. If I want to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler, I do not want to have to do so knowing that rapiers suck. I could forgive one or two points of STR, that's statistical noise--but a full DC? In a game where 8 DC is a lot? Maybe my swashbuckler should use hand axes instead. +1 DC, and I can throw a hand axe. That's a no-brainer.

 

I really feel like I'm not asking for the world here. I don't care what the specific STR Min values are, as long as they're vaguely realistic and sort of in line with each other. But they're not. Is the hand axe thing a typo or did someone just jot down a bunch of numbers without even thinking about balance? Either way, it's pretty sloppy, given how important weapon combat is in fantasy. And why would people pay that kind of money for a sloppy book?

[Alibear]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Rep Da Old man. I feel exactly the same.

[mayapuppies]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

I'd say that this is certainly something to put forth when Steve does his "What do you want to see" thread for the 6E Fantasy Hero. Considering how close GenCon is, that should be soon.

[Ragnarok]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Okay... before I go on, if I seem to be coming off the handle a bit, it's because FH is far and away my favorite RPG, even moreso than Champions. I've been playing it for decades. So I care.

 

Now I'm sure the printed STR Min chart is fine for some; certainly whoever the "lead line developer" is thought so. However, in FH--any heroic-level combat RPG, really--weapons play a huge role. That seems pretty obvious. I guarantee that the weapons chart in any fantasy RPG is one of the ones that is going to get worn out fastest, along with the armor and encumbrance table, skills, and powers. It is one of the pages that you absolutely want to photocopy for reference in-game.

 

Fantasy Hero is particularly notable for allowing its players to play just about any kind of character they want, within reason, and still have them be effective in the game. That's why it's incredibly annoying for the weapon stats to be so out of whack. If I want to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler, I do not want to have to do so knowing that rapiers suck. I could forgive one or two points of STR, that's statistical noise--but a full DC? In a game where 8 DC is a lot? Maybe my swashbuckler should use hand axes instead. +1 DC, and I can throw a hand axe. That's a no-brainer.

 

I really feel like I'm not asking for the world here. I don't care what the specific STR Min values are, as long as they're vaguely realistic and sort of in line with each other. But they're not. Is the hand axe thing a typo or did someone just jot down a bunch of numbers without even thinking about balance? Either way, it's pretty sloppy, given how important weapon combat is in fantasy. And why would people pay that kind of money for a sloppy book?

 

My sentiments exactly.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Speaking as a sometimes historian of early modern war, I will say this in defence of axes: you can't miss the references to them in campaign histories of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. "The carpenters of the army"* lead the van, join storming parties, and generals are always squabbling over who gets to use them.

Sometimes, very rarely, they even use them in fights. Because what axes are good for is (sit down, put down the coffee, I'm going to rock your world with my revelations here) turning trees into lumber.

Okay, a good long axe is also good for scattering a line of spearmen/fusiliers with bayonets/pikemen, but by and large, an axe is designed to maximise striking power at the expense of handling because trees tend to freeze up in close combat. It strikes me that a -1 OCV would fix the tables up for tomahawks and battleaxes. (the problem with the big ones is that they were usually used like quarterstaffs in duels.) But I'd really want to see the tables extended, because the best reason to carry a tomahawk as a sidearm is for climbing and disassembling abatis: which use, oddly enough, isn't well-reflected in my version of the hand-to-hand weapon table in 6e2.

In short, axes are very useful tools for soldiers to have. Swords are better weapons and spears even better. Maybe the tables in Fantasy Hero will reflect this.

 

 

*"Pioneers," but the nomenclature is a bit complicated.

[Rapier]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Okay... before I go on, if I seem to be coming off the handle a bit, it's because FH is far and away my favorite RPG, even moreso than Champions. I've been playing it for decades. So I care.

 

Now I'm sure the printed STR Min chart is fine for some; certainly whoever the "lead line developer" is thought so. However, in FH--any heroic-level combat RPG, really--weapons play a huge role. That seems pretty obvious. I guarantee that the weapons chart in any fantasy RPG is one of the ones that is going to get worn out fastest, along with the armor and encumbrance table, skills, and powers. It is one of the pages that you absolutely want to photocopy for reference in-game.

 

Fantasy Hero is particularly notable for allowing its players to play just about any kind of character they want, within reason, and still have them be effective in the game. That's why it's incredibly annoying for the weapon stats to be so out of whack. If I want to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler, I do not want to have to do so knowing that rapiers suck. I could forgive one or two points of STR, that's statistical noise--but a full DC? In a game where 8 DC is a lot? Maybe my swashbuckler should use hand axes instead. +1 DC, and I can throw a hand axe. That's a no-brainer.

 

I really feel like I'm not asking for the world here. I don't care what the specific STR Min values are, as long as they're vaguely realistic and sort of in line with each other. But they're not. Is the hand axe thing a typo or did someone just jot down a bunch of numbers without even thinking about balance? Either way, it's pretty sloppy, given how important weapon combat is in fantasy. And why would people pay that kind of money for a sloppy book?

 

I see where you are coming from and I think you are greatly missing a point.

 

Analgously, your point is: why would anyone wield a 9mm semi-automatic pistol when they could have a rotary assault cannon, a minigun or grenade launcher. Those weapons do more damage, so are naturally superior. Weapons ARE very important in a heroic game. But they are not the beginning and end of the story. You cannot simply argue in some vacuum that a nuclear missile is better than a longbow. Each has it's place in the scheme of things.

 

A great deal of the difference is good character design. Does a rapier do less damage than a great-sword? Yes. However, a character who uses a rapier should (in all likelihood) be designed as if he is going to use a rapier. He might attack more frequently, will have more control over his weapon so will be more accurate and wielding a lighter weapon will have a great deal of focus on defending (including blocks, dodges and parries). If you are churning out identical warriors and making the only difference the weapon they are holding, then you are doing them a disservice. This is what DnD did to us for all those years. Everyone always picked the highest damage weapon they could get their hands on. Think how odd it would be for a giant standing up the hill from a dungeon, "gee, Maury, that makes the 14th bastard-sword wielding warrior of the day, I guess I owe you 5 gp."

 

A rapier was never meant to go toe-to-toe against a large heavy weapon, like an axe. It's a light weapon and the character should be designed so that he can use that weapon effectively. A character who is appropriately designed for the weapon they wield is a formidable opponent. Weapon stats should not be the determining factor on the balance of an entire character. A character is more than the sum of the weapon they wield.

[ajackson]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

I see where you are coming from and I think you are greatly missing a point.

 

Analgously, your point is: why would anyone wield a 9mm semi-automatic pistol when they could have a rotary assault cannon, a minigun or grenade launcher. Those weapons do more damage, so are naturally superior.

Those weapons also have inherent disadvantages, which are why they aren't used in place of the pistol. This is not true for fantasy weapons. Now, simply forcing people to pay points for all weapons does a decent job of making the weapon distinctions irrelevant, but if you don't want people paying points for weapons, there are no inherent disadvantages of a Min Strength 10 axe over a Min Strength 10 sword that would cause you to use the sword; the axe is just a better weapon.

[Curufea]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

I should point out that you're assuming later periods of history - the Saxons often used axes, as did the Vikings. The Saxons also did not have swords as you assume them to be, they had saxes - which are more like what you think of as meat cleavers, crossed with machettes.

Axes are easier to construct than swords, require less metal which is difficult to mine and process, and are more easily repaired. Not only that - but they are superior to swords in pulling. I don't know how you would go about pulling someone's shield away from them (so your buddy with a spear can kill him) with a sword.

[ajackson]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

I should point out that you're assuming later periods of history - the Saxons often used axes' date=' as did the Vikings.[/quote']

It seems likely in both cases that they used axes because they had axes conveniently available. The primary realistic benefit of axes is that they're cheap and have non-combat uses, whereas swords are expensive and are a poor choice for any non-combat use. All of which is entirely irrelevant to Fantasy Hero (it could be used in Gritty Realistic Medieval Hero, if anyone ever played that).